RE: Another Microsoft XML patent
ACK!!! GET OFF MY FOOT!!! YOU BLOODY FURRY VERMIN!!! I think your interpretation is correct, and that is ok. Otherwise, formation of a WG and participation without RF commitments would be tantamount to asking an organization to leave the consortium. Consider the depth of some of the patent portfolios and it is unlikely one can do any specification work without tripping over someone's patent. The past is past. What we are dealing with are world wide systems that must interoperate. This flies directly into strategies to create an IP economy. I do understand this because a company with valid patents and licensing can fold that into the valuation of the company, the stock analysts see that, and the value of the company increases (say stock price goes up). That's legitimate. On the other hand, if we want larger markets then participation in the consortia for the construction of the world wide systems are required. Companies that get booted from the consortia or create the perception that they are illegitimately and fraudulently creating or perpetuating monopolies over vital technological markets begin to lose sales and that detracts from their valuation. We can lobby and try to use the current administration's laissez-faire America Uber Alles attitudes to keep the DoJ off our backs, but this is a WORLD economy and nations are starting to notice this stuff. At the end of the day, a company might want to notice that their ethics and their honor are on display here. Maybe it doesn't matter to some, but I believe over time, it will matter to their customers because if we are willing to cheat our partners and allies, what can be expected of us with regard to our customers? QUIT BITING MY FOOT, RODENT!!!! len (speaking personally and not for my employer) From: Michael Champion [mailto:michaelc.champion@g...] Welllllll ... not exactly. See http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/ Not having been tortured by giant squirrels in my childhood I'm not inured to the pain that studying this document closely would inflict, but the essence seems to be: "As a condition of participating in a Working Group, each participant (W3C Members, W3C Team members, invited experts, and members of the public) shall agree to make available under W3C RF licensing requirements any Essential Claims related to the work of that particular Working Group. " Presumably companies do an internal patent search to understand what they would be making available before joining a WG, but that's not part of the W3C process. So, there's no guarantee that the spec can be implemented without impinging upon a patent, there's only a promise by patent holders ON THE WG to licence it on RF terms FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPLEMENTING THE SPEC. Likewise there is a mechanism for excluding specific patents ... I *think* this is a way of telling the WG "BTW, we have a patent on [something or other] that we're not willing to license on RF terms, better make sure that the spec can be implemented without infringing it" but I could very easily be mistaken.
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format